Absolutely love 24 hours in police custody, one of the best shows on tv, but can’t help feeling the last couple have been too graphic. The dead body photos last week and the skeleton in the garden this week.. it just felt too shocking and showing it like that on tv disrespectful to the victim’s families. Could just be me being sensitive..

Anne agree with you.. looking at the photos from just before the poor woman died, her 3 children would still be very young, which made the skeleton being shown like that even more uncomfortable viewing for me. The children would probably be too young to have a say what is shown, but old enough to watch the program

Yes I saw it. Couldn't believe it when he told the custody sergeant not to raise his voice after just pretending to be unable to hear him. Also it would drive me mad if people answered "no comment" to everything. Would be interesting to know why they judge ordered the jury to find him not guilty.

Also though the solicitor was shifty as. Don't worry about whether or not he's guilty as hell mate, just as long as the police have asked their questions in the right tone of voice

I was shocked that they showed her body like that, and broadcast the bit about animal predation etc. Surely her family would be consulted before broadcast? Maybe they wanted everyone to see how appallingly she was treated and how disgusting they were.

Yes, I'm usually annoyed that the police seem to treat everything as a foregone conclusion sometimes, but there really was quite overwhelming evidence here.

The message I took away from this was it's a very minor crime to fail to notify police of a murder and conceal knowledge of a body dumped in a garden, as long as you don't get caught for a few years. 3 months suspended sentence and a judge ordering a not guilty verdict! Compare that with the lengthy sentence that vulnerable woman got last week when her friend died of pneumonia and she made an appallingly bad decision to move him.

Well to be fair, a defence solicitor's job is to represent their client and ensure police follow all procedures correctly when questioning them. If your client claims they are not guilty, you must proceed on that basis. To do otherwise would be to deny the right to fair trial and fair representation. They would not be doing their job properly otherwise.

There’s obviously a back story with this one (or I missed a bit), but I think the reduction in the sentence could have something to do with the confession (was it from the other brother?), who said ‘definitely don’t go digging in X’s garden’. The evidence linking them to the body must be hard to prove after so long.

I think it’s important to show what they deal with and how cruel people can be. That poor women was flung on the ground and buried in rubbish without a second thought and they really bought that to the fore tonight. I certainly felt that their euphoria of finding the body was quickly dampened when they discovered how she had been left.

Imagine all those years thinking you got away with that then the police knocking your door like that . The brother was totally trying to control the police .

I was amazed at just how the professionals can take a job that is literally like finding a needle in a haystack , in this case a bone in a big garden and uncover a whole skeleton . That is some fantastic work . I'm glad the lady can now rest in peace.

That solicitor had a professional win but , ugh, he was entirely sleezy in his postscript remarks. His client wasn't vindicated, he wasn't unfairly accused, he got away with it. Shame on them all - and frustrating for the police.

The brother in law was evasive and playing games from the start. He had a bloody body in his garden, something most people would deem quite serious. His strategy was to give a no comment interview and be evasion to divert the blame. And it worked. I suppose there was no real evidence to prove the brother in laws guilt but surely circumstantial evidence would be a factor?I’ve heard of people being convicted of murder without a body even being found.The solicitor was a real pain in the backside and seemed dodgy. Even when presented with the body being discovered he didn’t seem phased for his client. I know that’s his job but even so. No one got punished for that woman’s death or disposal of the body.

Agree that the solicitor was doing his job, but I was pretty astonished at his assertion that a body in the back garden doesn't suggest the owner might have a few questions to answer! He said there was no evidence his client was involved; other than the body buried in the garden!

Obviously if you've just bought the house etc then yes probably nothing to do with you, but to live with a body there for 12 years!

I also wondered why the police didn't dig up the garden 12 years ago- when it seems like the husband was always prime suspect.

The images were shocking,as well as the description of animal predation and the fact she was naked, but I think they served to show how badly the poor woman was treated. I found the bil who got off to be a vile human being. He had no conscience. He avoided the police, pretended to be deaf/ have health issues, the tone of voice to the officers (semi aggressive), accused the desk officer of bullying him and joked around when getting arrested for murder. I was thinking" even if you didn't care about her/ where covering for your brother, what about her kids? They're your nieces and nephews!"

I'm a solicitor and we have to do our jobs, that's just the way it is.

I agree with a PP that this seemed more of a 'sensational' episode than a true '24 hours.' This series seems to have been a bit more like that all round I think. They're cherry picking the odd 'wow' crime to make good TV.

I was a bit confused to as to why they didn’t look in the garden years ago when the other brother in law ( Joe?) made the confession to the police abut his brother murdering his wife. Why didn’t they look then? It also seems odd why the brother in law made the confession in the first place? Perverting the course of justice is actually a serious crime and can carry a life sentence. One brother got off scott free and the other brother a suspended sentence. I’d love to have seen that arrogant Dan go to prison!!

I’ve just watched it and I’m shocked that dumping a body after a murder and not telling anyone for 12 years carries only a 3 month suspended sentence, it must feel like a kick in the teeth to her poor children and no justice at all to the poor lady who had no dignity in death.Perhaps there is a need for a prison facility that can cater for people who are infirm or in ill heath as it seems unfair that they should escape punishment for such a vile crime.

I also wondered why the bil garden hadn’t been properly looked at back when she disappeared given that the husband was the prime suspect. And they hadn’t even made any effort to disguise the huge mound of earth!

I assumed the woman’s children had given permission for her body to be shown. Were the pics we saw of her taken just before she died though? As the husbands brother were all in their 70s I’d say, some reasonable to assume that she’d be a similar age and there for 50/60 when she disappeared and therefore children would be adults. I didn’t pay full attention to the beginning and so may have missed her age being stated though.

i assume that there was not enough evidence (or any?) that he knew the body was there or had any involvement in it being buried. he was already stating that he was never there ect. presumably the judge felt that there was no way it could be proved beyond reasonable doubt. i find it fascinating i would hope that the victims in this case, her children were consulted about the pictures. maybe they felt the programme was a good way of memorialising what scum their father and uncles were